The Future of The Golfing Machine

[Brian Manzella]

Now that the 7th edition is out, the ownership is in Joe Daniels' hands, and there will continue to be "Golfing Machine Summits" like the excellent one in Birmingham, Alabama this past year, what is next?

There will always be "Golfing Machine" teachers who have a mini-breakthrough and never give the book credit, but are all 'breakthroughs" good?

Is it possible that someone trying to help TGM could hurt it?

Of course, the answer is absolutely.

Homer Kelley's genius was a "system that explains all methods," but, if THAT message is lost in any new publicity, will that hurt the book's future?

In my opinion, ANY IDEA that there is a "Golfing Machine Swing" is very dangerous. Bobby Clampett hit it as good as possible for a while, but when he went bad—and I know he went bad with Haney/Ballard/Leadbetter ideas—the detractors could say "see, I TOLD you that stuff won't work."

The book should be at the top of every pro's shelf, but it is not, and the question is, "How WILL IT get there?"

I worry that one day at a PGA Summit, someone will 'present the book' in a way that will hurt the progress of others who teach TGM.

I damn sure well would take that in consideration when I get my chance. So far, since there was an LLC, Ben Doyle and James Leitz at the MIT Summit, did a good job. Dave Edel as well. But their presentation were not "How best to use The Golfing Machine in your Teaching Program."

I did a talk like that at the First Golfing Machine Summit, but it was given knowing WHO I was giving it to—other AI's.

I would do a TOTALLY different version for a PGA Summit.

I worry about these things.

 

[Steve Khatib]

Now that the 7th edition is out, the ownership is in Joe Daniels' hands, and there will continue to be "Golfing Machine Summits" like the excellent one in Birmingham, Alabama this past year, what is next?

There will always be "Golfing Machine" teachers who have a mini-breakthrough and never give the book credit, but are all 'breakthroughs" good?

Is it possible that someone trying to help TGM could hurt it?

Of course, the answer is absolutely.

Homer Kelley's genius was a "system that explains all methods," but, if THAT message is lost in any new publicity, will that hurt the book's future?

In my opinion, ANY IDEA that there is a "Golfing Machine Swing" is very dangerous. Bobby Clampett hit it as good as possible for a while, but when he went bad—and I know he went bad with Haney/Ballard/Leadbetter ideas—the detractors could say "see, I TOLD you that stuff won't work."

The book should be at the top of every pro's shelf, but it is not, and the question is, "How WILL IT get there?"

I worry that one day at a PGA Summit, someone will 'present the book' in a way that will hurt the progress of others who teach TGM.

I damn sure well would take that in consideration when I get my chance. So far, since there was an LLC, Ben Doyle and James Leitz at the MIT Summit, did a good job. Dave Edel as well. But their presentation were not "How best to use The Golfing Machine in your Teaching Program."

I did a talk like that at the First Golfing Machine Summit, but it was given knowing WHO I was giving it to—other AI's.

I would do a TOTALLY different version for a PGA Summit.

I worry about these things.

Brian I share your concearns, there is not doubt the currently there are many people as we speak in both hemispheres of the world (I will not mention names for once) prostituting the book for personal gain how do we stop this and debunk the public and PGA myths that stem from fear of lack of knowledge about what TGM really is.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Mainstream TGM

I think even the most ardent TGM haters know that there is SOMETHING in the book that MUST be good.

The trick, IMO, is not to give them an AMMO to show them what they can 'shoot down.'

There is RESEARCH on the swing going on in MANY PLACES and UNIVERSITIES right now, and I bet they would PROVE what I teach 99% correct.

But, what if someone says the book is "this and this" and these INSTITUTION OF RESEACRH can show that "this and this" is just not present in the very best swings?

Got me?

 

[Leozevo]

The Future of the Golfing Machine

Brian;
You did a great job in Birmingham, Ala and I hope that I live long enough that a AI of TGM will be a headliner at the PGA Teaching and Coaching Summit. I realized in Birmingham that the year of 1973 was a very critical year in golf and Golfdom has suffered as a result. Golfers would be better players today if THE Book had been accepted by the PGA Education Committee for teaching. Keep up your great work. See you in Orlando in December.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Thank you, Sir.

I did my best in 'Bama, I have watched the DVD of it a few times and I did "ok." I grade it at B+

But, I think the THESIS was correct.

I sure hope I get my chance at the national Summit.

But trust me on this:

If the "powers that be" thought they could have someone present the book like I did—in a very INclusive way—or the PGA could put someone on the stage that made it (TGM) seem more of a METHOD, I think they would go with the latter.

I think they would because "it would be LESS of a threat" to those "powers."

One of the biggest concerns with having me talk at ANY Summit or PGA-Sponsored large group seminar is the FEAR that I might be as good as I say.

 

[Steve Khatib]

Yep, The PGA dont have the intersts of golfdom at heart they are all puppets and public servant government worker mentalities that just want to keep their job rather than do their job. You and TGM is a threat to their little PR propoganda back slapping boys club theve got going in Florida.

The game is dying a slow death because it is being taught worse now than 30 years ago by the position golf line drawers on their PGA endorsed V1 laptops.

I am worried and instructors are losing creditibility with the golfing public everyday due to poor instruction and people just give up on teachers rather than try their best to find an AI that knows what he doing.

Imagine you were a new instructor without a clue going to Pga summits to actually learn something on teaching?

You would go home with more crap ideas than you started with and think you were doing the right thing by people in teaching them 'flat spots' etc. lol.

 

[Damon Lucas]

V1s

Brian and Steve,

I use a V1, and I do draw some lines. I think I have some idea but wouldn't be here(and writing this) if I didn't think there were better ways to educate(possibly).

What are your thoughts on the visual nature of learning?
How do you give your students(not the idiotic ones Steve) a more permanent record visually of what you've worked with them on?
What technology would you embrace to enhance your ideas?

Regards

 

[Brian Manzella]

Good question, Damon.

I have been making "review videos" for those who spend a few hours with me.

They work because they are the DISTILLED version of what we have done.

I used to tape the WHOLE lesson, but, it never helped as much as I thought it would have, and sometimes, I found it better to NOT to give them 'take home' material.

It IS a very important subject in the lesson world.

 

[Steve Khatib]

Great question Ha, Ha Damon not all my students are idiotic I do stretch that out a bit too far sometimes. I agree with V1 just not every lesson it is a teaching aid like an impact bag or Ben's mat but I can still teach golf with out it. 95% of post 1990 circa instructors could not teach two lessons in a row with drawing lines and using video. Youre right visual learning in many forms is important bt good instructor can recognise these times with each student and use video appropriately. I could tell you 100 stories of students that attended a turn style cookie cutter academy range down the road from me that tell me that they dont wont video or too much of it and al the stories and time it wastes. But pros cant teach are dependant on it and they need to learn to teach people not try to waste time and put on smoke and mirror shows to their students .

 

[birdie_man]

Incredibly good thread...

...

I've thought of this before too...

With all the differences in interpretations and opinions and ways of teaching even WITHIN TGM.....and some ARE better than others...

What if the wrong person "gets the mike?"

And what if this person does an outstanding, very convincing job at presenting the wrong/incomplete content...."selling TGM"...(or TGM as they see it)....

How true.

Good thread.

...

And you're right Brian..."TGM swing?"....bunk! That's not TGM....talk about missing the point...

 

[birdie_man]

So you would say that Clampett, at a time, hit it as good as possible?

He studied with Ben Doyle right?

What happened?

Why would he screw with that?

Why couldn't he get the fix? He knew a lot, no?

 

[Brian Manzella]

Bobby

1. Compared to many, Clampett is not that TGM knowledgeable
2. Problems started with 'personal issue'
3. He the worried that other guys he came up with were winning
4. Almost every mag, rag and teacher WANTED him to fail
5. He got BAD advice form Ballard, Haney and others
6. Said at the TGM Summit, he should have kept his swing the same

But, back to the thread...

Remember, the guys with the equipment and know-how want to BLOW TGM up...remember the yale guy, etc...there are dozens of cats just like him...

 

[Biffer]

Get Off The Dime!!

As has been discussed many times in the past, the real problem with TGM is not the information in the book, just the way the info is presented. TGM will probably never be successfully accepted by main stream golfers until it is transcibed into a format that they can readily understand. It shouldn't be necessary to read a book twenty times or more to just figure out what the heck is being said. There may be some arguments by some people that the TGM book is the best or not entirely correct or complete or incomplete or whatever, but it's so darn difficult to comprehend the book that it's nearly impossible to make an honest evaluation of it's content. Just look how long it's been since the book was first published!

I have asked a lot of players if they have ever even heard of TGM and the answers I get are 99% negative. IMO, TGM would definitely be the most widely accepted manual on the golf swing mechanics, if the book was easier to comprehend. So, if the TGM owners want to promote their product, the first thing they need to do is get off the dime and rewrite the book!! I expect the PGA guys would be first in line to sign on to become AI's and Brian would be fully occupied teaching them.

 

[birdie_man]

The book won't ever be a hit with normal guys....

But why can't TGM instructors be successful in the mainstream?

Sure they can....and they should! (or any guys who KNOW golf anyway).....sounds like there's a lot of shit to wade through tho....

...

Then again tho.....maybe you're right.....maybe if the book were more readable......more people would read it....and it would become more obvious that it IS the real deal. Who knows.

 

[Biffer]

The book won't ever be a hit with normal guys....

But why can't TGM instructors be successful in the mainstream?

Sure they can....and they should! (or any guys who KNOW golf anyway).....sounds like there's a lot of shit to wade through tho....

...

Then again tho.....maybe you're right.....maybe if the book were more readable......more people would read it....and it would become more obvious that it IS the real deal. Who knows.

Well, it's pretty obvious that after 36 years since the book was first published that it will never "be a hit with normal guys..", unless, maybe, something is done to change the way the content is presented. If the book was redone, at the very least it could serve as a catalyst for the serious player to seek out a knowledgeable instructor, which is generally the case anyway.

 

[gumper]

Re: The Future of TGM

We need a book and DVD entitled, "TGM For Dummies," with a soup-to-nuts approach. As terrific as the main TGM-based forums are, they reach a maximum of 8000 golfers, and that assumes no overlap between the forums, which is not the case. We're probably actually talking about 4000-5000 TGM forum members out of how many millions of golfers?

gumper

 

[bpgs1]

I've been conducting a little survey of my new golf school students for the past six years. As part of a questionnaire they fill out before attending a school, they are asked "Have you had your swing videotaped in previous lessons and if so how much did seeing the video of your golf swing help you to improve?".

To date, 80% say "little or no improvement". What DOES work is "real time" slow motion movement pattern re-programming done in front of a mirror. This can imprint the visual "look" of the proper form very well in a lesson format with constant real time feedback from the teacher until the student gets it right. It's a great starting point for most golfers. But I still believe you need to go way beyond the visual imprint at some point and feel the motion, then go beyond a feel dependent swing to a true neuromuscular dominant habit.

I agree with some of the previous comments. Video has been way oversold to the golfing public as some kind of high tech instant wonder. I almost never use video for anyone who is about a 15 handicap or higher unless they specifically request it or the student just won't accept my feedback. It is very time consuming and has little "bang for the buck" for mid to high handicappers. I almost always use it for low handicap players however.

Jim Waldron

 

[Steve Khatib]

Video misused

I could not agree more

 

[Martee]

Video for golf stroke analysis IMO is way way over sold at time. All these lines and circles can make on dizzy at times.

Some of the most effective video I have seen had no lines. It was used to merely show the student what he thought he was doing and looking like to what he was actually doing and looked liked. This seem to get the attention of most of the golfers and they did pay closer attention to the instructor even though it may have felt strange.

Like any tool, video can be overused, misused and used to cover up knowledge and skills.

In the right hands it appears to be a very useful tool.

You gotta love those who stand off to the side and back and hold the camera shoulder height while taping.

 

[redan48]

speaking only as a CONSUMER of golf instruction

Golf was played for hundreds of years without benefit of TGM or Video, and not always played badly. High School Bands sound about as crappy today as they did forty years ago when I was in high school. Musical instruction has the distinct advantage of not needing video aids! I've always believed, speaking strictly as a golf instruction CONSUMER, that learning the golf swing was more like learning to play a musical instrument. If only I could find someone to give me or some way to get basic good technical info....
I don't care where that comes from. Pragmatically speaking, the last three years or so I have learned very good usable things from several sources & instructors, all of whom had TGM backgrounds. Except one....I went to a public library and on a dusty old shelf in back I found several old golf instruction books from pre TGM-- none newer than 1965. There was one by Julius Boros. One silly illustration in it... A line drawing of Julius Boros standing at address position, but he was drawn as an archer, with the bow taught, the arrow ready to fly. The left arm extensor action was immediately clear to me, the power of the right forearm, the necessity and function of the bent right arm, it was as though a fog had lifted.

Boros I thought was excellent on basic chip pitch and punch instruction. For the longer clubs and the driver he was word for word like every golf magazine article the past 50 years. Too bad. And objectively speaking, the bow and arrow drawing wasn't any great shakes, but because of the TGM based instruction I've had, I accidentally(?) saw something more.

I agree with Brian that the math would show that TGM is substantially accurate info. But how to do that is complicated.

I dont worry so much about differences between Blake Coker Doyle Manzella Hebron, etc. I don't have to. It's all about me me me. My golf game. I take what I can use, and forget everything else.

This is an excellent thread, sorry if I've slowed it down...